{"id":32840,"date":"2025-12-16T12:42:44","date_gmt":"2025-12-16T12:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/?post_type=article&p=32840"},"modified":"2025-12-16T13:12:01","modified_gmt":"2025-12-16T13:12:01","slug":"technology-in-sport-where-does-the-balance-sit-between-accuracy-reliability-and-practicality","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/technology-in-sport-where-does-the-balance-sit-between-accuracy-reliability-and-practicality\/","title":{"rendered":"Technology in Sport: Where Does the Balance Sit Between Accuracy, Reliability and Practicality?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
\n\t
\n\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\n\t\t\t\t
\n
Members Only<\/div>\n \n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

\n 16 Dec 2025 <\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>Articles<\/a>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t\t

Technology in Sport: Where Does the Balance Sit Between Accuracy, Reliability and Practicality?<\/h1>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n \n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
Category<\/div>\n Premium<\/a> <\/div>\n
\n
Share<\/div>\n Facebook<\/a>\n Twitter<\/a>\n Email<\/a>\n Copy Link<\/a>\n
https:\/\/leadersinsport.com\/performance-institute\/articles\/technology-in-sport-where-does-the-balance-sit-between-accuracy-reliability-and-practicality\/<\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/section>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

In the third and final session of his virtual roundtable series, Professor Fabio Serpiello of Central Queensland University raised the question of decision-making frameworks when choosing or discarding tech solutions.<\/p>\n \n \n \n

\n

By John Portch<\/h6>\n
Do you have a process in place to make sure that the tech you implement is the right one?<\/h6>\n

Fabio Serpiello, the Director of Sport Strategy at Central Queensland University, first posed this question to Leaders Performance Institute members as part of the survey that resulted in our Trend Report<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Fewer than half of respondents said \u2018yes\u2019, with more than a third saying \u2018no\u2019. Curiously, nearly 20 percent said \u2018I don\u2019t know\u2019.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat\u2019s a good chunk,\u201d Serpiello told members of that 20 percent figure while leading a recent Leaders Virtual Roundtable. \u201cIt is probably more interesting than the \u2018yes\u2019 and \u2018no\u2019 given that most of the people that responded are at the \u2018head of\u2019, \u2018director of\u2019 or \u2018vice president of\u2019 level.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Yet in the same survey, almost 90 percent of respondents believed that a framework was at least \u2018somewhat important\u2019:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Logically, it seems likely that a good proportion of those respondents face frustrations in their work.<\/p>\n

This likelihood set the stage for the third and final instalment of Serpiello\u2019s roundtable series looking at tech-related innovation in sport.<\/p>\n

First, the table noted some common problems around making decisions on tech.<\/strong><\/p>\n

A lack of decision-making frameworks: <\/strong>the magnitude of the challenge will depend on to whom you speak. Some markets are more mature than others; some sports resist tech-related innovation. As Serpiello said: \u201cWe are experiencing a lot of difference in the maturity of the European context and the Australian context versus the American context in some of these discussions, naturally, because of the way sport works.\u201d<\/p>\n

Overzealous vendors: <\/strong>almost every practitioner has heard a misfiring pitch from tech vendors at some point; they\u2019re even more likely to have seen purported tech solutions gathering dust in a cupboard at their practice facility. A senior sports scientist illustrated the reality in his role:<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s not always us identifying a gap and reaching out to the best fit to fill that gap. It\u2019s a lot of companies reaching out to us and trying to be ahead of the curve sometimes, which is maybe filling a need that you don\u2019t have.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Pressure from leadership:<\/strong> in some cases, senior leaders are pushing their high performance teams into finding the latest gadget. The aforementioned sports scientist also feels pressure from above:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019re being pushed from the top, even if you don\u2019t know if the suggested tech solution makes sense. They\u2019ll say: \u2018just get some fancy toy that people will talk about\u2019.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

The table also pointed to several solutions.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Serpiello spoke of the Sports Tech Research Network, specifically its Quality Framework for Sports Technologies<\/a>, as a time-saver.<\/p>\n

This white paper introduces a standardised, evidence-based framework which can be adopted by sports technology stakeholders to assess the value, usability and quality of technology.<\/p>\n

Developed in collaboration with 48 experts across the sports industry by means of a Delphi study design, the framework includes a range of qualities grouped under five overarching pillars:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\u201cSome of these pillars lead to more hardcore science questions; accuracy, repeatability, reproducibility, construct validity, or predictive validity; those are very much science-driven,\u201d said Serpiello. \u201cSome of them are more operational such as compliance, data privacy or environmental sustainability; and some are more user experience; how does the customer support and training work? These things are very important for you in sport because they make or break the day-to-day choices and the day-to-day use of technology.\u201d<\/p>\n

He then illustrated how the framework might be used to make informed choices:<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

One or two members had already used and adapted the framework to their team, as one sports scientist explained:<\/p>\n

\u201cWe\u2019ve adopted it when we\u2019re looking at multiple systems for velocity-based training or GPS, just to give our practitioners and stakeholders guidance and have that scoring system to then see how it ends up; and to put in some objectivity to the potential subjectivity of that process. I think it\u2019s helped us a lot because different stakeholders in different departments can come together. We actually added to it as well for things like partnerships and sponsorships and adapted it to our setting, which made it even more useful.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

Governing body mandates<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Serpiello explained, international confederations such as FIFA and FIBA, as well as national governing bodies, such as the Dutch Olympic Committee*Dutch Sports Federation, mandate the format in which data must be produced by companies.<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, the AFL has an \u201cinternal technology group\u201d for vetting all potential tech solutions. Serpiello said: \u201cIt includes coaches, medical, sports science, S&C, commercial, legal personnel and they say \u2018we meet once a month and we deal with the approaches this way\u2019. So outside that process, they do not respond to you, they do not engage with you, they say to you as a company \u2018this is the process, submit your inquiry, and then we\u2019ll assess it\u2019. I like it because it takes away a lot of that constant having to deal with companies that come and say \u2018we\u2019ve got this amazing product\u2019 only for you to then realise that it\u2019s really the same product as before.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another example is the NBA Launchpad, which is the league\u2019s initiative to source, evaluate and pilot emerging technologies.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt\u2019s basically \u2018come and show us what you have and we\u2019ll look at it\u2019,\u201d said Serpiello. \u201cThat\u2019s slightly different from \u2018okay, we\u2019ve got an issue and we\u2019re going to throw it out there\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n

Accuracy and reliability are less important than practicality<\/strong><\/p>\n

Accuracy and reliability are important but they are not everything.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019ve slightly changed my mind on this over the years,\u201d said Serpiello. \u201cI\u2019ve seen organisations chasing the product that was one percent more accurate or reliable on some of the main variables, only to then completely disregard the other part, which was does it have API [application programming interface] connections with my other systems? Does it allow me to make quick decisions every morning when the athlete rocks up? Those things are far more valuable than being able to say confidently that high-speed running this week was 1K or 1.1K.\u201d<\/p>\n

A programme manager in the Australian system concurred while highlighting the tension between providing broadcast data (where granularity and accuracy are not as important as they might be for a high performance team).<\/p>\n

He said:<\/p>\n

\u201cI think that\u2019s the healthy tension between something that is returning value, whether it be in the speed of decision making or feedback from experimentation; that\u2019s the inherent tension of scientifically valid and reliable systems versus commercially valuable systems\u2026 and just because something\u2019s not valid and reliable doesn\u2019t mean it\u2019s not <\/em>valuable. You just need a measurement to be able to reduce that accuracy and reliability to a standard that you\u2019re comfortable with.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n

What to read next<\/strong><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Tech Change Is Coming \u2013 Are you Prepared?<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n